All Farangs To Pay Full Price At National Parks

[Johpa]

In Thailand, they don't want seem to want to differentiate between the tourist who just stepped off a plane, and one who has lived here for years, has a Thai family, etc.

Doesn't seem fair, but that's the way it is....

It usually isn't a tourist vs non-tourist issue, it usually boils down to a race based issue. It doesn't seem fair because it is not fair and it is not right.

Not only is not not fair it is downright stupid. The policy causes the majority of ex-pats to simply avoid National Parks. It also causes all of those people so despised by so many posters here, the low budget travelers and backpackers, to avoid the National Parks. When you add the large ex-pat community, something like 10,000 in Chiang Mai alone, together with the large numbers of budget tourists, you probably end up with a net loss of income. So generating income must not be the ultimate goal of this policy.

I see this folly almost everyday whenever I am in-country. Our home is within a National Forest/Park boundary, one of those villages grandfathered in as existing before the park boundaries were established. There is a small waterfall nearby. It is very pretty, much prettier than the downright ugly Mae Sa Waterfall complex, not very big, and there are no services provided other than basic toilet facilities. Almost everyday we see tourists riding their rented Honda Dreams driving by the house to the waterfall and then driving back down the road a few minutes later after rejecting the 400B entrance fee. I know the Forestry guys who work there and they are the first to admit that the policy is crazy and that they have few visitors willing to pay the fee. At one time, yeas ago, before the fees increased, there were a few local women who would sell som tam and drinks to visitors. But now there are too few visitors to make it worthwhile.

Now I know there are those neo-sahib expats out there who claim that 400B is not very much. Well if it is only once a month perhaps so. But many tourists will be visiting several parks within a very short time, perhaps two or three waterfalls within a single day, and then it starts to add up to real money for many. What is needed, and what is typically done elsewhere, is selling weekly, monthly, and annual passes to both tourists and Thai alike. In my store in the US, I sell a daily Forest Pass for $5 and a yearly pass for $30, same price for locals or tourists.

[jackr]

400 Baht is about 8 pounds (for foreigners). As a native of UK I have to pay 25 pounds Woburn Wildlife Park, 17-95 pounds Tower of London and 20 pounds Madame Tussauds.....that's as a native! I agree that foeigners should pay the same and they do. However, if the UK brought in a law saying I can go to places that involve my heritage for say five pounds a time, but all foreigners have to pay full price I wouldn't complain. I reckon a one off 8 quid to a decent national park isn't so bad.....just be selective where you go.

What a load of drivel. I suspect this was written just to bait me which it did. This type of comment is niave and counter productive. Next you'll be telling us that we should pay 65 baht a litre for petrol and 476 baht for a bus ticket from Bangkok to Pattaya because it costs 14 pounds on the Oxford Tube to London. Hey why not make the Skytrain far 102 Baht. Don't compare anything in a country you visit to anything you spend "at home". Pick another indicator like the minimum daily wage or the price of daily necessities and then do some math, you'll get closer to the real price. Accordingly my calculation says entrance to The Tower of London is 17.95 (the other two you quoted are businesses and not government owned) so 17.95/5.52 is 3.25 hours at minimum wage. So take 3.25 hours at 22.85 baht which is Bangkok's minimum and we get a sample entrance fee of 75 baht to a Natl. Park. Incidentally I couldn't find the admission charge for UK Natl' Parks. maybe they are FREE!

I believe in Aus. this person would have been called a "WHENWE"

I don't see any need for personal insults, but I expect the moderators will edit it - all I have done is pass my opinion.

It was certainly not written to bait you.....who are you anyway someone important? Why is the comment naive and counter productive? Naive and counter productive for whom....you? If I say I see nothing wrong with paying 400 Baht for a visit to a national park its up to me, I can pass an opinion (can't I)? I didn't realise this was a blogsite where everyone had to agree with each other. Incidentally I'm not visiting here - I've lived here on a retirement visa for 11 years (Nienke knows me) and to be honest I find very little to complain about - I think we are lucky tolive here. I think your rantings about petrol and bus tickets are just that...rantings.....do try to come back with something a little more constructive. You are free to use your money exactly as you choose and if you can't afford a trip to a National Park then don't go.....its as simple as that!

Perhaps because you're comparing costs with a Western nation and missing the point as newbies, or the naive, tend to do?

[el jefe]

This issue isn't unique to Thailand. Dual pricing policies are in place in most countries in Central and South America and most other countries in Asia. My understanding is that the officials in these countries think that most foreign visitors to their National Parks are tourists or residents who, for whatever reason, do not pay taxes. A simple solution would be for foreigners to produce proof of payment of income taxes to receive the discounted resident rate. imho, if you don't pay taxes, the higher fee is fair.

From a purely economical viewpoint, if the difference in fees is 20B vs 400 B, unless over 95% of the foreigners are avoiding the National Parks, then two-tier pricing is economically profitable too.

[chanchao]

In Thailand, they don't want seem to want to differentiate between the tourist who just stepped off a plane, and one who has lived here for years, has a Thai family, etc.

Doesn't seem fair, but that's the way it is....

It usually isn't a tourist vs non-tourist issue, it usually boils down to a race based issue. It doesn't seem fair because it is not fair and it is not right.

Not only is not not fair it is downright stupid. The policy causes the majority of ex-pats to simply avoid National Parks. It also causes all of those people so despised by so many posters here, the low budget travelers and backpackers, to avoid the National Parks. When you add the large ex-pat community, something like 10,000 in Chiang Mai alone, together with the large numbers of budget tourists, you probably end up with a net loss of income. So generating income must not be the ultimate goal of this policy.

I see this folly almost everyday whenever I am in-country. Our home is within a National Forest/Park boundary, one of those villages grandfathered in as existing before the park boundaries were established. There is a small waterfall nearby. It is very pretty, much prettier than the downright ugly Mae Sa Waterfall complex, not very big, and there are no services provided other than basic toilet facilities. Almost everyday we see tourists riding their rented Honda Dreams driving by the house to the waterfall and then driving back down the road a few minutes later after rejecting the 400B entrance fee. I know the Forestry guys who work there and they are the first to admit that the policy is crazy and that they have few visitors willing to pay the fee. At one time, yeas ago, before the fees increased, there were a few local women who would sell som tam and drinks to visitors. But now there are too few visitors to make it worthwhile.

Now I know there are those neo-sahib expats out there who claim that 400B is not very much. Well if it is only once a month perhaps so. But many tourists will be visiting several parks within a very short time, perhaps two or three waterfalls within a single day, and then it starts to add up to real money for many. What is needed, and what is typically done elsewhere, is selling weekly, monthly, and annual passes to both tourists and Thai alike. In my store in the US, I sell a daily Forest Pass for $5 and a yearly pass for $30, same price for locals or tourists.

Excellent post. And this is why for me personally this issue gets my BP up; not the money per say, I have ways to get to the places I want to get to, but it's because I CARE about Thailand and seeing it disappoint visitors needlessly I think is sad for Thailand and sad for the visitor. It's so short-sighted.

I've said it before, but it's *SO* easy to get tourists to spend money if you add some value. Tourists WOULD pay top dollar for a park ranger to show them around. Tourists will spend wads of money when given half a chance, but to practice double pricing is really dumb because it's like shitting on the goose that lays the golden eggs.

[ThaidleHands]

In Thailand, they don't want seem to want to differentiate between the tourist who just stepped off a plane, and one who has lived here for years, has a Thai family, etc.

Doesn't seem fair, but that's the way it is....

It usually isn't a tourist vs non-tourist issue, it usually boils down to a race based issue. It doesn't seem fair because it is not fair and it is not right.

Not only is not not fair it is downright stupid. The policy causes the majority of ex-pats to simply avoid National Parks. It also causes all of those people so despised by so many posters here, the low budget travelers and backpackers, to avoid the National Parks. When you add the large ex-pat community, something like 10,000 in Chiang Mai alone, together with the large numbers of budget tourists, you probably end up with a net loss of income. So generating income must not be the ultimate goal of this policy.

I see this folly almost everyday whenever I am in-country. Our home is within a National Forest/Park boundary, one of those villages grandfathered in as existing before the park boundaries were established. There is a small waterfall nearby. It is very pretty, much prettier than the downright ugly Mae Sa Waterfall complex, not very big, and there are no services provided other than basic toilet facilities. Almost everyday we see tourists riding their rented Honda Dreams driving by the house to the waterfall and then driving back down the road a few minutes later after rejecting the 400B entrance fee. I know the Forestry guys who work there and they are the first to admit that the policy is crazy and that they have few visitors willing to pay the fee. At one time, yeas ago, before the fees increased, there were a few local women who would sell som tam and drinks to visitors. But now there are too few visitors to make it worthwhile.

Now I know there are those neo-sahib expats out there who claim that 400B is not very much. Well if it is only once a month perhaps so. But many tourists will be visiting several parks within a very short time, perhaps two or three waterfalls within a single day, and then it starts to add up to real money for many. What is needed, and what is typically done elsewhere, is selling weekly, monthly, and annual passes to both tourists and Thai alike. In my store in the US, I sell a daily Forest Pass for $5 and a yearly pass for $30, same price for locals or tourists.

Excellent post. And this is why for me personally this issue gets my BP up; not the money per say, I have ways to get to the places I want to get to, but it's because I CARE about Thailand and seeing it disappoint visitors needlessly I think is sad for Thailand and sad for the visitor. It's so short-sighted.

I've said it before, but it's *SO* easy to get tourists to spend money if you add some value. Tourists WOULD pay top dollar for a park ranger to show them around. Tourists will spend wads of money when given half a chance, but to practice double pricing is really dumb because it's like shitting on the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Thailand took the conscious decision to be in the tourism business. In any business, treating your customers with contempt is a sure road to ruin, sooner or later. Price issues are always close to home for most people and being gouged by a factor of 10 or 20 is going to be high on the list of things that stick in their craw irrespective of the actual amount involved. Thailand Inc. is pissing away a lot of good will when they could set one price and more than make it back on volume.

[sriracha john]

This issue isn't unique to Thailand. Dual pricing policies are in place in most countries in Central and South America and most other countries in Asia. My understanding is that the officials in these countries think that most foreign visitors to their National Parks are tourists or residents who, for whatever reason, do not pay taxes. A simple solution would be for foreigners to produce proof of payment of income taxes to receive the discounted resident rate. imho, if you don't pay taxes, the higher fee is fair.

From a purely economical viewpoint, if the difference in fees is 20B vs 400 B, unless over 95% of the foreigners are avoiding the National Parks, then two-tier pricing is economically profitable too.

At these Central American National Parks, say, for example in Honduras, do they allow El Salvadorians, Guatamalians, and Panamanians to enter unquestioned at the local Honduran rate while assuming that all Caucasians are not Honduran citizens and require they pay a higher fee?

Same with the South American National Parks... does a National Park in Columbia allow Venezuelans, Peruvians, and others of the same general race to enter at the local rate?

This is the situation that I've encountered frequently enough in Thailand, but not elsewhere, that separates it from the rest of the world in their rather unique method of demanding or not demanding higher payments based on a racial appearance.

Edited November 19, 2007 by sriracha john

[jumnien]

Seems like the Thai government is charging about an average hours wage for entrance to a National Park whether you are farang or Thai, seems fair!

[Crow Boy]

Seems like the Thai government is charging about an average hours wage for entrance to a National Park whether you are farang or Thai, seems fair!

A average hours wage for a farung working in Thailand or overseas? An hours wage for a Bankok worker or in regional area? An hours wage for a worker in London, Dubai or Boise Idaho?

Perhaps you would suggest everyone take a pay slip and pay a pro rata entry fee based on income

It is the big difference and the constant reminder that "you are farung and rich so you can pay" that gets to a lot of the farung living here.

CB

[jumnien]

One must remember that we farang living in Thailand are rich. I've not met many farang making 160 baht/day. I've met many living on ten times that amount!

[Crow Boy]

One must remember that we farang living in Thailand are rich. I've not met many farang making 160 baht/day. I've met many living on ten times that amount!

The thing I love about blanket statements is that it relieves the person from having to do anything to support it. I earn more than 160 baht per day and consequently pay a much higher amount of tax plus by your arguement I also have the priveledge of paying extra to take my family to visit the National Park. And that is solely because I am a farung. Ok and when my managing director and the board members who are being paid much more than me go to the same National Park they are going to happily shell out the extra because that would be greng jai? Hmmmm right Sure thing.

We actually did a company family day at a National Park and all of the Board Members were pulling out their ex military passes to avoid having to pay the 20 baht. I had to pay for a family and the staff wanted full price because we "are a farung family even though everyone was Thai and I had my Work Permit, Drivers license etc" Finally in a huge display of benevolence they decided to let me in for "local price".

CB

[jumnien]

Unfortunately, Warren Buffet pays the same amount as his secretary does when he visits Yellowstone National Park. Is life fair?

[Crow Boy]

Unfortunately, Warren Buffet pays the same amount as his secretary does when he visits Yellowstone National Park. Is life fair?

And the Chairman of Chang Brewery would pay the Thai price of 20baht and the most money concious backpacker who really wanted to visit the site, would be told to shell out 400baht.

You are right life is not fair.

However I choose to go where I wish and if I decide I am willing to pay the money I will do so. If however I choose not to I won't. Many Thais are embarrassed by the double tier pricing but they know there is nothing likely to cause it to change

CB

[jumnien]

Farang also pay the 20 baht admission if they are Thai citizens; it's got nothing to do with ethnic origin. As for backpackers and national parks, where I come from a backpacker pays twenty dollars for entrance, the equivalent of two Thai dinners!

[Crow Boy]

Farang also pay the 20 baht admission if they are Thai citizens; it's got nothing to do with ethnic origin. As for backpackers and national parks, where I come from a backpacker pays twenty dollars for entrance, the equivalent of two Thai dinners!

In my home country I paid a very high rate of tax and that was to pay for a wide range of services including health, roads, and National Parks. Park entry is free so by you arguement all visitors should pay a substantially higher entry fee to compensate. Same then with the museums, art galleries, public transport system? In Thailand I am expected to pay extra for everything not because I can afford it but because I am farung. If we used that arguement in any western country the term racist would be loudly and correctly screamed by everyone affected.

$20 for dinner, equivalent to two Thai dinners? Not if they are Thai.

CB

[jumnien]

For those of us rich b-stards who pay high rates of tax in our home countries to come to Thailand and complain that the entrance fees to Thai National Parks is too high and in the mean time spend far, far more on bar fines to enter other Thai national treasures is well, a bit absurd really. And as for those who wish to start an international political human rights movement to improve the lot of the oppressed caucasian in Asia, well again, a bit absurd.

[sriracha john]

Farang also pay the 20 baht admission if they are Thai citizens; it's got nothing to do with ethnic origin.

Actually one of the darker aspects of this situation is that on many occasions it DOES have to do with ethnic origin....

The insidious racism is one aspect of the dual-pricing that is rather unique to Thailand.

Edited November 19, 2007 by sriracha john

[jumnien]

Actually it's the lighter aspects of this situation that are being charged higher fees. In general, that is!

[uptheos]

For those of us rich b-stards who pay high rates of tax in our home countries to come to Thailand and complain that the entrance fees to Thai National Parks is too high and in the mean time spend far, far more on bar fines to enter other Thai national treasures is well, a bit absurd really. And as for those who wish to start an international political human rights movement to improve the lot of the oppressed caucasian in Asia, well again, a bit absurd.

I fully agree with this quote and the writer fully highlights the absurdity of it all. It's easy to call me naive, opinionated just because I'm not one of the old regulars and don't agree with you. But I've been here long enough to know some things change and some things don't change - get used to it or complain to your MP.

Someone mentioned the poor backpackers who have to shell out 400 Baht... my heart bleeds for them it must be quite a shock after shelling out 40,000 Baht or more to get here.

Look, I don't like the double pricing and I like the idea as someone suggested that a multiple park entry ticket could be purchased. I'm all for places keeping their prices as low as possible, but we know Thai's often go fo the quick fix rather than think ahead, so my guess is things will not change. Therefore, just vote with your wallet or put your complaints onto blogsites in your home countries warning people - here it seems like preaching to the converted and if you disagree you're cast out.

On a slightly different note there is a little hole in the wall restaurant near me that serves delicious Thai food. Eight years ago her menu was everthing 25 Baht - today, same menu and everything is 25 Baht, so don't think all Thai's are out to get you or your life here will be rather unhappy.

[uptheos]

I tend to agree with Crowboy that politeness works wonders, not to mention the forum rules.

If we have problems in Thailand, perhaps we could contact local authorities rather than crab at one another?

I have found that the Tourism Authority of Thailand, Thai Immigration and even the Tourist Police (who seem willing to forward comments to the appropriate governmental departments) are open to meaningful input (as opposed to complaints about their country) and are willing to respond in kind.

If Thais are in our home country and find discrepancies in the administration of fees, laws or treatment of foreigners, should they complain to one another or seek appropriate resolution?

Theos, while I understand (not necessarily agree with) your standpoints, if you find yourself having trouble with fellow ThaiVisa members or the moderators, is it possible that you tend to come off as sometimes rude and opinionated? Not a judgment, just an observation.

Respectfully, da Dustoff

Dustoff - I'm not sure if you are referring to me in the last paragraph, but if so thanks for your observations.

You mention 'rude' and 'opinionated'. Opinionated, yes on some things and why not? Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I see bloggers on this site far more opinionated and far more rigid than I am, but they are seasoned members so the newbie takes the flack. Rude, I certainly don't mean to be rude. If you mean telling things the way I see them or disagreeing with people's whinging is classed as rude then I'm at a loss as to what is and what is not acceptable. I have read back through hundreds of comments that are far more ruder, sarcastic, swearing disguised as initials and smacks of racism. I believe my messages pale into insignificance alongside these!

Thanks once again for your comment

[thaipete]

400 Baht is about 8 pounds (for foreigners). As a native of UK I have to pay 25 pounds Woburn Wildlife Park, 17-95 pounds Tower of London and 20 pounds Madame Tussauds.....that's as a native! I agree that foeigners should pay the same and they do. However, if the UK brought in a law saying I can go to places that involve my heritage for say five pounds a time, but all foreigners have to pay full price I wouldn't complain. I reckon a one off 8 quid to a decent national park isn't so bad.....just be selective where you go.

What a load of drivel. I suspect this was written just to bait me which it did. This type of comment is niave and counter productive. Next you'll be telling us that we should pay 65 baht a litre for petrol and 476 baht for a bus ticket from Bangkok to Pattaya because it costs 14 pounds on the Oxford Tube to London. Hey why not make the Skytrain far 102 Baht. Don't compare anything in a country you visit to anything you spend "at home". Pick another indicator like the minimum daily wage or the price of daily necessities and then do some math, you'll get closer to the real price. Accordingly my calculation says entrance to The Tower of London is 17.95 (the other two you quoted are businesses and not government owned) so 17.95/5.52 is 3.25 hours at minimum wage. So take 3.25 hours at 22.85 baht which is Bangkok's minimum and we get a sample entrance fee of 75 baht to a Natl. Park. Incidentally I couldn't find the admission charge for UK Natl' Parks. maybe they are FREE!

I believe in Aus. this person would have been called a "WHENWE"

I thought it was Wnging Poms LOL, I was in Australia a lot in the 70's and regularly called a Pommie B*stard I went back recently and when I said I was a pommie it was regularly blimey mate that is dam near an Ozzie, all white policy went sometime in between

[Donnyboy]

for what its worth, I can get in at the local prices as long as I keep my mouth shut!

[jaideeguy]

How about other [non] national park attractions, such as the CM zoo and the Queen's garden on the Samong loop, which have always honored my thai drivers license??

FYI, i was just up in doi inthanon nat park a month ago and entered with local price [with my thai DL]

[chanchao]

Heavily tinted window film on your Fortuner also helps.

Edited November 20, 2007 by chanchao

[Crow Boy]

For those of us rich b-stards who pay high rates of tax in our home countries to come to Thailand and complain that the entrance fees to Thai National Parks is too high and in the mean time spend far, far more on bar fines to enter other Thai national treasures is well, a bit absurd really.

If your post above is in any way directed to me then your apology and retraction had better follow this message. The part of your message where you wrote "spend far, far more on bar fines" is a flame and not acceptable on this forum.

CB

[chanchao]

Seems like the Thai government is charging about an average hours wage for entrance to a National Park whether you are farang or Thai, seems fair!

There's about 25 Thai people around me as I type this. Their average hourly wage is 150 baht. These are the middle class people who actually travel, and visit national parks. Then again, you may hang out with different people.

Also 200/400 baht is FAR out of line with what anything else costs. Seeing a movie for 2 hours in what was a big investment to construct, license the movie, employ staff, etc: around 100 baht.

Visit a mediocre natural waterfall for 20 minutes where nothing has to happen except empty the trash bins at 5pm (and even that often doesn't happen) : 400 baht. It really is insane, and don't think people don't realize this when a family of 4 wants to take a quick look at a waterfall and get presented a bill of 1600 baht.

Puh-leez.

All it does is turn Thailand in more of a sex tourist's destination. <unnecessary sexual reference deleted> "Quality Tourists " are being milked dry.

[There's gotto be a funny-ish pun in there.. Provide your own pun, I'll do the <ka-ching> afterwards.]

Edited November 20, 2007 by Crow Boy
sexual reference

[Naam]

The insidious racism...

does not exist! or would you call it racism that any non-floridian pays a multiple entrance fee for any theme park in Florida, U.S. of A.? the lower fee is available to anyone producing a Florida driver's license whether his/her skin colour is black, white, yellow, red, green or whatever AND no matter what nationality.

[RueFang]

Out of interest, the long term farang complaining about having to pay full price, DO YOU SPEAK THAI? I never have to pay farang prices at National Parks because when I speak Thai to them, they know that I have lived here long enough to learn the language. Many times if my husband goes to buy the tickets and I'm standing in the background they will quote him the higher price for the farang (perhaps thinking he's a tour guide!), but as soon as I approach and speak with them in Thai, they instantly are all smiles and drop the price. The only place I've paid "full" price was at Grand Palace in Bangkok where they didn't care how long I'd lived here and how good my Thai was!! Paying 400 baht entry fee is just obscene and is not justifiable.

[bungalowbill]

400 Baht is about 8 pounds (for foreigners). As a native of UK I have to pay 25 pounds Woburn Wildlife Park, 17-95 pounds Tower of London and 20 pounds Madame Tussauds.....that's as a native! I agree that foeigners should pay the same and they do. However, if the UK brought in a law saying I can go to places that involve my heritage for say five pounds a time, but all foreigners have to pay full price I wouldn't complain. I reckon a one off 8 quid to a decent national park isn't so bad.....just be selective where you go.

You make a good point, however it's not the same if you live here and have to pay more than locals. Your not a tourist you live here the same as they do. For example if you live near the park or a waterfall and you like to go a few times a month for a picnic or whatever it can get expensive.

[jackr]

In a word, it's &lt;deleted&gt;! If they feel the locals should be subsidized, then fine, charge us double; but attributing the extra charge as a counter to tax-paying locals is so &lt;deleted&gt; transparent it's almost funny. Some numb nut mentioned about the amount farang spend in the bars. Sorry, but &lt;deleted&gt; has that got to do with the price of fish? That's their prerogative and no discrimination, but if Bill Gates gets charged 10- or 20-times more than Somchai Bloggs to get into a national park, all because of the colour of his skin and perceived wealth, then that's short-sighted crap. Sure, one can vote with one's feet and piss off back home, but that ain't the point and anyone arguing otherwise is a little bit simple in my book.

[sriracha john]

for what its worth, I can get in at the local prices as long as I keep my mouth shut!

There's innumerable National Parks spanning the length and width of this country where that doesn't work.